Game Tactics vs. Perceived Value - How much can one compensate for the other?
05-03-2012, 12:44 PM
Posted this on another thread, but thought it was worthy of its own discussion.
Guys who are successful with women posses a combination of two general attributes: “perceived value” and “game tactics”.
Examples of value to women:
- Fame
- Money
- Height
- Looks
- Relative social value
Examples of tactics used on women:
- Social competence
- Charm/wit
- Flirtation
- Push-pull
- Psychological mind games/routines (ie. Mystery Method/NLP)
Guys who possess lots of perceived value don't require as much proficiency in game tactics to score with women. Guys who lack perceived value need far more proficiency in game tactics to yield the same results.
The PUA movement and the methods discussed in Bang and Day Bang are designed to help guys who otherwise lack perceived value to score women out of their league using game tactics.
But to what extent can “game tactics” truly compensate for a lack of “perceived value”? Particularly when two of the most critical sources of value – height and race – are immutable?
Guys who are successful with women posses a combination of two general attributes: “perceived value” and “game tactics”.
Examples of value to women:
- Fame
- Money
- Height
- Looks
- Relative social value
Examples of tactics used on women:
- Social competence
- Charm/wit
- Flirtation
- Push-pull
- Psychological mind games/routines (ie. Mystery Method/NLP)
Guys who possess lots of perceived value don't require as much proficiency in game tactics to score with women. Guys who lack perceived value need far more proficiency in game tactics to yield the same results.
The PUA movement and the methods discussed in Bang and Day Bang are designed to help guys who otherwise lack perceived value to score women out of their league using game tactics.
But to what extent can “game tactics” truly compensate for a lack of “perceived value”? Particularly when two of the most critical sources of value – height and race – are immutable?